Southern standard. (McMinnville, Tenn.) 1879-current, 1887-09-17

mile law, they have submitted to the
same Infringement of their :" personal
rights " to which they would have
to submit in the adoption of the Pro-
hibitory Amendment.
The Free Press opposes the amend
ment on the ground that sit inter
feres with a mans right to eat and
drink what he pleaseS." Now if he
is not opposed to the Four-mile Law
we call upon him to show in what
respect he can enjoy the liberty to eat
and drink what he pleases under the
four-mile law that he cannot under
the amendment or if it has the least
regard for It's consistency as a public
journal designed to be read by intel
gent people to at once and forever
put a stop to this everlasting gibber-
ish about personal rights" with
which its columns r filled from
week to week.
Long before most of these writers
were born the statesmen of our coun-
try carefully considered this matter
of personal rights and the policy
of our State, as numerous Statute
laws will show, is to allow a free ex-
ercise of those rights, except where it
interferes with the public welfare,
either in regard to public safety,
health or morals. Under the last
head are to be foundlaws prohibiting
gambling, houses of RIGHTEOUSNESS,
indecent exposure of person, printing
and sale of obscene literature, etc.
Against the enactment of these laws,
these newfangled notions Of "per-
sonal rights have never been urged.
Although the saloon stands today in
the eyes of the civilized world con
fessedly as more injurious than all
the other evils combined, to the pub
lie safety, health and morals, our
State has acted slowly and timidly in
employing remedies to repress it.
Under moral and christian influ-
ences public sentiment has reached a
plane upon which our legislature has
declared them to be public nuisances,
and as such are to be abated whenev-
er found within four miles of any
school. This law, after nearly ten
years trial, was almost unanimously
endorsed by our last legislature, and
may now be considered the fixed
policy of our State:
In our battle in Tennessee for this
amendment, we have the advantage
of our brethren in Texas in that we
have gone a step further than they
had gone. Our State has long since
decided against the radical doctrines
upon which the amendment was de-
feated there, in the enactment of our
four-mile prohibitory law, and he
who advocates those doctrines if he
has the least respect for consistency
must at the same time advocate its
repeal.
1 hear some wondering why the
leading public men of our State are
not making Anti Prohibition speech
es! Is it not clear to any man Of
common sense? Most of'these mer
have some little respect for their con
sistency. They at least want to APP
pear consistent, and they know thai
they will be obliged to make wal
upon the four.mile law or they will.
be compelled to dispense with the
clap-trap stock in trade that the gap
I, ing crowds are expecting to heal
from them, and their speeches viii
} fall upon them like a wet blanket.
But we again call upon the Fret
Press and all other anti-prohibitior
papers and speakers to say, are yol
for or against the repeal of the -Four
mile law?
We insist upon an open fight.
CONSISTENCY.
uoma Tndustriec